After 20 years of ups and downs, it has become evident that the pro-life, pro-family movement has been the biggest single political and social loser in American history. For all of the money, time, and apparent strength of the movement, lost ground is the only thing to show for it all. Sodmites march in our streets -- with the persistent presence of high-ranking political officials. Homosexual rights are recognized by our highest court. Despite fewer abortionists, surgical abortions continue apace. Protest is so limited by law and court mandate as to be almost wholly ineffectual. Abortuaries and abortionists enjoy a protected status equal to our highest officials. What could possibly explain all of this? Why is it that those who should have God on their side -- who fight to preserve godly principles in a nation founded on God -- why are their efforts so apparently fruitless? I believe Achan has the answer. The story of Achan in the Bible tells of the victorious army of Israel's first incursions into the promised land. Once Israel had crossed over the Jordan River, their first job was to take out the city of Jericho. In God's instructions to Commander-in-Chief Joshua, the Israelite soldiers were not to take any "spoil" or "booty" from the first of the ten-city offensive. Most of us remember the story of Rahab hiding the spies and of the walls which came "tumblin' down," but few remember the story of Achan (Joshua 7). Achan, it seems, decided to squirrel away just a little booty from Jericho. After the conquest of Jericho, the Israelite generals were pumped. One said, "Joshua, just give me a few guys and well go over and take the city if Ai. It is real small and it shouldn't be any trouble." The problem was, Ai beat Israel's army -- and beat them badly. Israel had never lost a man in battle until Ai -- where they lost 36. After seeking God over this awful event, God showed Joshua that the loss was due to "sin in the camp." In short order, Achan's sin was uncovered and he was stoned to death. Only then could God continue to bless the entire nation of Israel with victory. Something very similar applies to what the Bible calls "spiritual Israel" -- the church. In fact the sin in the American church's camp is far worse and far more widespread than Achan's transgression. While Achan stole what was God's (the booty of one city in ten), the American church has murdered God's heritage. Ten years ago, many Christians were surprised to read that a survey showed that one in six of the women going for surgical abortions was a self-identified "evangelical" Christian. Recently, the same survey showed an increase to one in five. (These figures could only be higher if the interviewees were completely honest.) But that is not the worst of it. While Christians have been calling for an end to the slaughter of the unborn and proclaiming that these little ones have a right to life "from the moment of conception," they themselves have been busy killing off their own children with CHEMICAL abortions. They have been consumers of abortifacient birth control -- pills and intrauterine devices (IUDs) -- at the same rate as their pagan counterparts. IUDs have only one method of operation. They prevent implantation of an already conceived child. Birth control pills (every variety) have three methods -- two actually prevent conception, but the final back-up is prevention of implantation. Bo Kuhar, president of Pharmacists for Life estimates between 8 an 13 million abortions per year in the U.S. alone due to these methods. And Christian women -- even pro-life activists -- use these methods. Many churches counsel the use of birth control. And while many (including me) believe that all birth control is unbiblical, there can surely be no argument that abortifacient methods of birth control are sin. But we have all sorts of excuses. One pro-life activist couple I am aware of said they had "prayed about it" and that they (presumptuously) believed God would not allow the pills to ever use the third, abortifacient mechanism. Others simply refuse to believe what is printed right on the patient information -- that the pill prevents implantation -- and find "Christian" doctors who are willing to continue the deception. Churches support the denial and continue to advise newlyweds to use abortifacient birth control. Thus, millions of Christian babies are aborted by their Christian parents every year in the U.S. With all that blood on the church's hands, how could we ever expect God to bless our efforts. We've been so busy trying to remove the splinter in the pagans' eyes that we have neglected the beam in our own. The fact is that blood guilt demands the payment of the blood of the murderer. Fortunately, we have a Substitute who will offer His blood instead of ours -- if we will acknowledge our transgression and repent. For as long as I can remember, people in the pro-life, pro-family movement have quoted 2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." (KJV) We talked a lot about it, but we never DID it. Yes, we had prayer meetings. Yes, we called on God to forgive "the sins of our Nation." But we never did what the verse says. We didn't repent of our own sins. In fact we were completely blind to our own sins. And those of us (like me) who knew (that we were killing our own babies), were unfaithful watchmen on the wall -- we did not sound the alarm. But today we are still alive. Wickedness has not yet fully enveloped the nation. There is still time to repent. There is still -- in that repentance -- hope that God will heal our land. God forgive me for not sounding the warning!

Nietzsche's point has even more force in our own society, wherein, with few exceptions, men and women live their lives as if there were no God and yet still carry on a profession of being religious. In Nietzsche's dramatic picture, there is something tragically absurd about the man who is shocked by someone else's atheism when it is impossible to discover any genuine religious faith in him. For the average American today, as for the average individual in Nietzsche's Germany, it simply makes no practical difference whether God exists or not. This is true in spite of those polls that show that 98 percent of Americans believe in God. Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and the Death of God Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and the Death of God ,Dr. Ronald H. Nash

Barna's research indicates that, of the 80 million Americans who claim to be born again, roughly only 7 million of them have a biblical perspective. In Think Like Jesus, he examines guidelines for developing a Christian worldview and letting it change one's way of life.Researcher Says Most Christians Lack Biblical Worldview AgapePress ^ | September 15, 2003 | Allie Martin / George Barna is the founder of Barna Research Group

Q. Sir, on May 6th, on the floor of the house you asked the question: "Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic." How would you answer that question, Sir?

A. A growing number of Americans want it, but a minority, and that is why we are losing this fight in Washington at the moment. That isn't as discouraging as it sounds, because if you had asked me that in 1976 when I first came to Washington, I would have said there were a lot fewer who wanted it then. We have drifted along and, although we have still enjoyed a lot of prosperity in the last twenty-five years, we have further undermined the principles of the Constitution and private property market economy. Therefore, I think we have to continue to do what we are doing to get a larger number. But if we took a vote in this country and told them what it meant to live in a Constitutional Republic and what it would mean if you had a Congress dedicated to the Constitution they would probably reject it. It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin. If you didn't put the name on it and just looked at the programs, they would say, Oh yeah, we believe in national health care and we believe in free education for everybody and we believe we should have gun control. Therefore, the majority of the people would probably reject Thomas Jefferson. So that describes the difficulty, but then again, we have to look at some of the positive things which means that we just need more people dedicated to the rule of law. Otherwise, there will be nothing left here within a short time. Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic An Interview With Ron Paul, SierraTimes.com, 05. 23. 03

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion....Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

Amen. The Bible tells us about the moral decay that precedes the "end times." I believe what we're seeing now is the beginning of the "birth pangs". I'm not saying that we should quit trying, but things are going to get a lot worse before Christ's return. However, I am encouraged by seeing prophesy fulfilled. Keep looking up! We win in the end.

This means we change our ways...........so the question to you (and to me) is what are you doing about it. I am not baiting you but would sincerely like to know what you are doing. "Be ye doers of the word."

Well, it's probably true that if Christians were better they would be more successful.

But the battle isn't being fought on equal ground. Pro-life organizations raise their money $5 and $10 at a time from ordinary people. Pro-aborts raise their money by the billions from abortion profits, government funding, major foundation grants, and other big-money sources.

Pro-lifers can only communicate through mailings and newsletters. Pro-abortionists control virtually all the media: newspapers, radio, TV. Even many "conservative" outlets, such as the New York Post, won't touch it. Even the WSJ editorial page is pro-abortion.

Pro-lifers control the voting booths, but normally they can only work with the major parties. The Democrats are viciously pro-abortion, and the Republicans are a mixed bag. Arnold Schwarzenneger is just the latest example. People now have the choice of voting for Bustamente, a pro-abort, or Arnold, a pro-abort. McClintock, who probably would have won a primary battle, has been painted into a corner. And it's predictable that if and when Arnold wins, he will go to the 2004 Republican Convention and urge the delegates to drop the pro-life plank. It happens again and again.

Pro aborts control congress and the courts. RICO laws are used against them. The so-called Freedom of Access to Clinics law discriminates against them. Judges bend the laws to persecute them.

Finally, the pro-aborts control the schools, the universities, and above all the tyrannical Supreme Court.

The real miracle is that, almost forty years after Roe v. Wade, the pro-life movement is still very much alive.

Amen. But by the time we get to the end we'll be so transformed that we won't be able to recognize ourselves. New creatures, we will be. Refined by fire. Really, really painful fire. So it won't be us so much as some new community, a new congregation for a New Jerusalem.

If church-folks don't freak out over Barna's findings...I don't know what would wake them up...

I was about to state, "persecution", but those that dont freak out are most likely to be the persecutors (Ted Kennedy):

Persecution -- that's the name for it. Tolerance might be the highest virtue in our popular culture, but it doesn't often extend to Christians these days.

Christians are increasingly being driven from public life, denied their First Amendment rights, and even actively discriminated against for their beliefs.

In this relentless exposé of political correctness run amok, best-selling author David Limbaugh rips apart the liberal hypocrisy that condones selective mistreatment of Christians in the mainstream media, Hollywood, our schools and universities, and throughout our public life. PERSECUTION, by David Limbaugh.

The sad truth is that you can't legislate morality. Morality comes from within, not with draconian big government laws.

I think you're right. I also think the abortion issue is the age old problem of individual vs the collective. In the case of abortion women, in particular, are for an individual rights interpretation of abortion. Christian fundamentalists favor the collective concept of abortion being regulated by government. Conversely, gun control is favored as a collective right by those that favor abortion as an individual right. The "crux" of both issues is over the control of life and death. Who has it, who doesn't.

Some abortion advocates are willing to concede that unborn children are human beings. Surprisingly enough, they claim that they would still be able to justify abortion. According to their argument, no person-no unborn child-has a right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling host. Unborn children may have a right to life, but that right to life ends where it encroaches upon a mother's right to bodily autonomy. The argument is called the bodyright argument.

What many people fail to realize is that most of the arguments used to justify killing unborn children could be used with just as much force to justify killing newborn children and, in some cases, even full-grown adults.

I Was Once a Fetus -- mathematician and philosopher Dr. Alexander Pruss .The Real Problem with Abortion -- examines two competing positions on the issue--the position of moderate pro-life advocate Don Marquis and the position of liberal abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren. McNeil concludes that neither position sufficiently explains why it is wrong to kill human beings, and introduces his own viewpoint.

"IUDs have only one method of operation. They prevent implantation of an already conceived child. Birth control pills (every variety) have three methods -- two actually prevent conception, but the final back-up is prevention of implantation.

Bo Kuhar, president of Pharmacists for Life estimates between 8 an 13 million abortions per year in the U.S. alone due to these methods.

And Christian women -- even pro-life activists -- use these methods. Many churches counsel the use of birth control. And while many (including me) believe that all birth control is unbiblical, there can surely be no argument that abortifacient methods of birth control are sin."

One thing Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS did not mention, which I think is critical, is that he is teaching many people with his important posts like this one. Visit his homepage, it is a virtual library.

Ignorance sustained by denial is crippling this nations response to the holocaust of abortion and the growing tolerance of euthanasia.

The most important thing each of us can do is to educate our family and ourselves, then as many others as possible. And of course live out what we know.

27
posted on 10/04/2003 1:29:19 PM PDT
by cpforlife.org
(The Missing Key of the Pro-Life Movement is at www.CpForLife.org)

What many people fail to realize is that most of the arguments used to justify killing unborn children could be used with just as much force to justify killing newborn children and, in some cases, even full-grown adults.

I made no such statement either way. I simply reduced the abortion issue to its basic political polarities. Personally, I think abortion is immoral. I think murder of the innocent is immoral too.

I am Catholic from birth, so you will have to be specific with what "good old fashioned Protestant birth control" means.

I would also ask you to please read the following: "While Christians have been calling for an end to the slaughter of the unborn and proclaiming that these little ones have a right to life "from the moment of conception," they themselves have been busy killing off their own children with CHEMICAL abortions. They have been consumers of abortifacient birth control -- pills and intrauterine devices (IUDs) -- at the same rate as their pagan counterparts. IUDs have only one method of operation. They prevent implantation of an already conceived child. Birth control pills (every variety) have three methods -- two actually prevent conception, but the final back-up is prevention of implantation. Bo Kuhar, president of Pharmacists for Life estimates between 8 an 13 million abortions per year in the U.S. alone due to these methods. And Christian women -- even pro-life activists -- use these methods. Many churches counsel the use of birth control. And while many (including me) believe that all birth control is unbiblical, there can surely be no argument that abortifacient methods of birth control are sin. But we have all sorts of excuses. One pro-life activist couple I am aware of said they had "prayed about it" and that they (presumptuously) believed God would not allow the pills to ever use the third, abortifacient mechanism. Others simply refuse to believe what is printed right on the patient information -- that the pill prevents implantation -- and find "Christian" doctors who are willing to continue the deception. Churches support the denial and continue to advise newlyweds to use abortifacient birth control. Thus, millions of Christian babies are aborted by their Christian parents every year in the U.S. With all that blood on the church's hands, how could we ever expect God to bless our efforts. We've been so busy trying to remove the splinter in the pagans' eyes that we have neglected the beam in our own."

32
posted on 10/04/2003 3:42:39 PM PDT
by cpforlife.org
(The Missing Key of the Pro-Life Movement is at www.CpForLife.org)

Pro-aborts raise their money by the billions from abortion profits, government funding, major foundation grants, and other big-money sources.

This is true. I believe the pro-aborts have very little real grassroots in this country. Planned Parenthood reap huge windfalls amongst corporate and wealthy donors. They believe it to be politically correct to give to them, and in some cases I suspect the wealthy left wants to have fewer poor people of color around.

Laws that give teenage girls the right to abortion, as long as they "notify" their parents OR get a court to act in their parents place. In other words, we have passed laws HELPING teen girls kill their babies. How sad.

What's wrong with good old fashioned Protestant birth control? I believe it to be a gift from God.

Which god? Moloch? Baal? Bacchus? Surely not the God of Israel.

"Good old Protestant birth control," as you call it, was unanimously and vigorously condemned by all Christians -- Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox -- until 1930. The laws against birth control in the US, the Comstock laws, were written by Protestants. The Reformers, all of them, condemned artificial contraception as grave immorality.

In 1930, the Anglican Lambeth Conference became the first mainstream Christian body in history to endorse contraception. That decision was condemned, not only by the Pope, but by Mahatma Gandhi (!) and most of the rest of the world. Just a few years ago, Robert Runcie, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, said, in essence, that that decision logically led to approval of homosexual acts. He said that once the acceptance of contraception made it clear that it was okay to completely separate sex from procreation, it necessarily followed that homosexual acts could not be prohibited either.

The Supreme Court has stated quite clearly that their acceptance of contraception in the Griswold case, which struck down the Comstock laws, led directly to Roe v. Wade, because abortion is necessary as a "backstop" if contraception fails.

This article hits the nail right on the head. If American Catholics practiced Catholicism, and American Evangelicals learned the truth that their forebearers knew, that contraception is a sin against God, the pro-life movement would make progress.

I respectfully disagree wth the premise of the original piece, at least in part.

While I do not defend the use of IUDs and respect the beliefs of those who disagree with the pill (my personal opinion is that if the chances are great that fertilization has not occured that panicing over the potential instance of the last line of defense is perhaps too much presumption but I would not argue the point) I believe the "sin in the camp" lies in another, more obvious, place.

The church has been seduced, along with the world, by filthy lucre.

The simple truth is that we could have stopped abortion by electing pro-life politicians. We have the votes, if everyone who believed pro-life voted that way, to dominate the body politic, but we don't because too many "Christian" voters have regulated the issue of life to a subordinate position behind which candidate will put or leave the most money in their pocket (whether it be by handouts, tax cuts, more school money, or whatever).

They have sold the right to vote pro-life and so pro-choice politicians keep winning in sufficiant number to styme pro-life efforts. It's all well and good to wring your hands about the kind of leadership we have, but it means spit if you sell your vote for the nexr empty promise that emerges from the lips of that fellow whom you KNOW will not act to save lives.

Most prominent current example:

Tons of California Republicans will vote for the pro-death candidate whom they think can solve the budget problem. They may say "McClintock can't change the abortion issue by himself" which is very true - so who elected all those blood-money legislators?

Want to see things REALY change in America? Wait for the next Great Depression. Until people have their piles of gold stripped from them they will not be able to focus on anything else.

But the battle isn't being fought on equal ground. Pro-life organizations raise their money $5 and $10 at a time from ordinary people. Pro-aborts raise their money by the billions from abortion profits, government funding, major foundation grants, and other big-money sources.

I'm on the board of trustees of our local Right to Life organization. We meet on our own time, try to scrape up money from dues, garage sales, a thrift shop, etc., and every meeting we worry about whether we can operate for another month. By contrast, our opponents have paid jobs opposing us, at which they put in 40 hours a week. They don't have to oppose us on their own time, the do it during working hours. I know, life isn't fair, but it does irk me.

"Different churches have different ideas on this matter." We really aren't talking about religion or different churches. This is factual science. Birth control pills (every variety) have three methods -- two actually prevent conception, but the final back-up is prevention of implantation.

"I have a hard time taking this all seriously." Others simply refuse to believe what is printed right on the patient information -- that the pill prevents implantation... Churches support the denial and continue to advise newlyweds to use abortifacient birth control. Thus, millions of Christian babies are aborted by their Christian parents every year in the U.S.

It just doesn't belong in politics. OK, Where does it belong?

Lastly, the article below is on Freeper Polycarp's homepage. I think it puts this thread in a more complete context.

The Harsh Reality Regarding Abortion

The connection between the protestant acceptance of contraception, beginning only in 1930, and the legalization of abortion, cannot be overstated.

The apocryphal "right to privacy" upon which the horrid decision in Roe versus Wade was based, was first invented by five justices on the Supreme Court in the 1965 case Griswold vs. Connecticut. That case held that married couples have a "privacy" right to purchase contraceptives.

This struck down the only remaining "Comstock Laws," laws written by PROTESTANT Amereican legislators in the 1800's, based upon scripture and the constant teachings of Christianity, that outlawed the sale/distribution of ALL FORMS OF CONTRACEPTION.

So legalized abortion was based on legalized contraception. Contraception was accepted in our culture because sola scriptura Christians caved on the continual teaching of 1900 years of Christianity regarding contraception, but only during the past 80 years.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the US Supreme Court decision that confirmed Roe v. Wade [U.S. decision to permit abortions] stated in some critical respects, abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail.

The Supreme Court decision has made completely unnecessary, any efforts to expose what is really behind the attachment of the modern age to abortion. As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles. It is not because contraceptives are ineffective that a million and a half women a year seek abortions as back-ups to failed contraceptives. The intimate relationships facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions necessary. Intimate here is a euphemism and a misleading one at that. Here the word intimate means sexual; it does not mean loving and close. Abortion is most often the result of sexual relationships in which there is no room for a baby, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse.

To support the argument that more responsible use of contraceptives would reduce the number of abortions, some note that most abortions are performed for contraceptive purposes. That is, few abortions are had because a woman has been a victim of rape or incest or because a pregnancy would endanger her life, or because she expects to have a handicapped or deformed newborn. Rather, most abortions are had because men and women who do not want a baby are having sexual intercourse and facing pregnancies they did not plan for and do not want. Because their contraceptive failed, or because they failed to use a contraceptive, they then resort to abortion as a back up. Many believe that if we could convince men and women to use contraceptives responsibly, we would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus the number of abortions. Thirty years ago this position might have had some plausibility, but not now. We have lived for about thirty years with a culture permeated with contraceptive use and abortion; no longer can we think that greater access to contraception will reduce the number of abortions. Rather, wherever contraception is more readily available, the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions increase greatly.

The connection between contraception and abortion is primarily this: contraception facilitates the kind of relationships and even the kind of attitudes and moral characters that are likely to lead to abortion. The contraceptive mentality treats sexual relationship as a burden. The sexual revolution has no fondness - no room for - the connection between sexual intercourse and babies. The sexual revolution simply was not possibly until fairly reliable contraceptives were available.

Far from being a check to the sexual revolution, contraception is the fuel that facilitated the beginning of the sexual revolution and enables it to continue to rage. In the past, many men and women refrained from illicit sexual unions simply because they were not prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood. But once a fairly reliable contraceptive appeared on the scene, this barrier to sex outside the confines of marriage fell. The connection between sex and love also fell quickly; ever since contraception became widely used, there has been much talk of, acceptance of, and practice of casual sex and recreational sex. The deep meaning that is inherent in sexual intercourse has been lost sight of; the willingness to engage in sexual intercourse with another is no longer a result of a deep commitment to another. It no longer bespeaks a willingness to have a child with another and to have all the consequent entanglements with another that babies bring. Contraception helps reduce ones sexual partner to just a sexual object since it renders sexual intercourse to be without any real commitments.

It's time to look at how Protestant's throughout history have viewed sex deliberately made non- procreative. Let's start at the beginning. Historical Protestant views on this subject came from reading commentaries on Genesis 38, in which Onan, who married his deceased brother's wife to fulfill his familial obligation, withdrew from her during intercourse rather than impregnate her. God then killed Onan.)

Martin Luther and John Calvin are recognized as fathers of the Reformation.

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) - "Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."

John Calvin (1509 to 1564) - Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.

Also, John Wesley is recognized as the founder of the Methodism.

John Wesley (1703 to 1791) - "Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it."

So what happened?

It's the old story of Christians attempting to conform the world to Christ and the world trying to conform Christians to its ways. Protestants fought bravely, but in 1930 the first hole appeared in the dike (in the Anglican Church) and lead to a flood. In the next thirty years all Protestant churches were swept away from their historic views on this subject. One interesting point is that just a few years earlier the Anglican Church condemned contraception.

In 1908 the Bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting at the Lambeth Conference declared, "The Conference records with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare."

The Lambeth Conference of 1930 produced a new resolution, "Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, complete abstinence is the primary and obvious method.,

"but if there was morally sound reasoning for avoiding abstinence, "the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles."

By the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was an accepted part of life among most Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents "in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife."

The Anglicans present an excellent microcosm of what happened among Protestant churches in the 1900s.

A constant Christian teaching was completely undone among Protestants in a mere thirty years. This brings up an unsettling choice...either the Holy Spirit was not guiding Christians before 1930 or Protestant Churches have been ignoring His guidance after 1960.

45
posted on 10/04/2003 5:56:59 PM PDT
by cpforlife.org
(The Missing Key of the Pro-Life Movement is at www.CpForLife.org)

A constant Christian teaching was completely undone among Protestants in a mere thirty years. This brings up an unsettling choice...either the Holy Spirit was not guiding Christians before 1930 or Protestant Churches have been ignoring His guidance after 1960.

The "Equal Creation" principles in the Declaration of Independence were the cry of the anti-slavery crusade for 30 years. Today most evangelical leaders and many presidential candidates reference the same document and the Creator's "endowment of unalienable rights" in the fight against big government and abortion rights. What they fail to mention is that this document is also an instrument of judgment. They overlook its "execution" provisions. In its first paragraph, the very existence of the nation is pinned to the "laws of nature and nature's God." For Jefferson's contemporaries, this phrase meant the Romans 2:15 law written on every man's heart, whether Christian or not, as tested by the Christian Bible.

Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood. The blood of an unborn child is separate from that of its mother at 21days gestation and is a person from conception (Luke 1:42-43). As you know, killing such a child violates God's laws in the Decalogue (Exodus 20:13). God hates such killing (Proverbs 6:16-17) and it defiles the land (Numbers35:33). God is personally pledged to avenge the shedding of innocent blood (Deuteronomy 32:43).

For shedding of innocent blood in Israel God brought a series of escalating judgments culminating in the Babylonian captivity in 586 B.C. (Psalm 106:36-43; Jeremiah 33:35,36) and, according to Jesus (Matthew 23:34,35; Luke 11:49-51), the life for life judgment and total destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. To the idolatry of Israel involving child sacrifice to Baal and Molech in exchange for material wealth and to celebrate sexual promiscuity, we have added an idol of convenience.

Dr. George Grant in GRAND ILLUSIONS documented a 1989 discovery of 39,000 patient information forms from 14 Planned Parenthood abortion clinics nationwide indicating that 62% of the women receiving abortions identified themselves as Evangelical Christians, another 20% as Catholic or Orthodox. Of those 82% of Planned Parenthood customers, 76% identified their local church membership and pastor. In the 25 years since abortions were legalized in 1973, Planned Parenthood has performed napproximately 2.5 million abortions. Based upon this sample, as many as 2 million (82%) Christian women have been Planned Parenthood patients.

- The research arm of Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, reported in surveys of 10,000 abortion patients in 100 clinics, hospitals, and physician offices in all regions of the country that in 1987, 16%, and in 1995, 18% of abortion patients described herself as a "born again" or Evangelical Christian. All Protestants accounted for 37%, Catholics - 31%, Jewish - 1%, and those citing no religion only 23.7%. This means that of the estimated 38 million abortions since 1973, up to 7 million involved Evangelical Christian women. It also means that the total number of abortion victims in Protestant and Catholic churches approaches 26 million women. If the fathers of the aborted children were Christian as well, the number would approach 52 million.

- Most believe that these statistics about the number of abortions is low. The inescapable conclusion of these sources is that for most churches, like the rest of the population, every third woman in the congregation and probably the same number of men have been responsible for an abortion. After 25 years there are millions of these women and men in the church who carry hidden sin and all are in dire need of post-abortion ministry.

An article called "Silence of the Shepherds," published by World Magazine on January 21,1995, offered the following observations on the absence of pastoral leadership in opposing abortion:

a. A study of preaching on abortion by World found that out of 20 well known Christian leaders (from 9 National Association of Evangelical-member denominations, and 2 at-large denominations) only 6 could provide a complete sermon on abortion and only 3 more could provide even an excerpt,

b. A poll by Molly Stone of Last Days Ministries in Tyler, Texas for her master's thesis at Regent University of 104 pastors from evangelical, mainline, and fundamentalist churches in the area surrounding South Hampton, Virginia, found that:

-76% believed that life began at conception, and 69% believed a strong stand on abortion was important, but only 39% ever devoted an entire sermon to abortion. Among evangelicals, the percentage jumped to 58%. -90% mentioned abortion in a sermon, but less than 50% ever announced a pro-life event from the pulpit or church bulletin. -70% said crisis pregnancy centers were the pro-life activity of choice, but 70% did not actually support such a center. -Only 17% endorsed pickets or prayer at clinics, and only 7% encouraged rescues.

World quotes R.C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries: "One of the greatest travesties of the church is its silence on abortion, particularly the evangelical church."

Many in the Pro-Life movement have been a major prophetic voice to the Church and to the nation. Their heroic evangelism outside the clinics has saved many unborn lives and quite a few abortionists. Like the abolitionists during the 19th Century, however, the civil disobedience and other tactics of some activists have contributed to their marginalization by the Church. Many on the front lines of clinic counseling or demonstrators have believed that rescuing is the only effective scriptural response since Proverbs 24:11 tells us to rescue those being led to the slaughter. In addition, these and other pro-life activists have responded to the silence of the pastors and the Church by "lobbying" them to become legally or politically involved.

The message sent and received is that the involvement in the abortion fight means picketing clinics, getting arrested or lobbying the legislature. For most pastors, this message simply reinforces the idea that abortion is a political issue and contributes to the ongoing silence from the pulpits. All of us in this movement need to repent where we have had any part in (1) sustaining the silence from the pulpits, (2) distracting the clergy from their ordained roles of preaching that abortion is sin, and ministering forgiveness and healing, and (3) failing to believe that God can end abortion through repentance and revival regardless of whether abortion is ever made a crime again. Abortion as "Shedding Innocent Blood" & Lessons Toward Repentance ...

And it's predictable that if and when Arnold wins, he will go to the 2004 Republican Convention and urge the delegates to drop the pro-life plank.

Zack replied #36:

The national effects of Arnold's victory really worry me as well. The Republican moderate/left is always looking for an excuse to muzzle conservatives.

Dahlseide unsolicited:

Referring to ...muzzle conservatives...

They begin by referring to themselves as conservatives. Simply look at the invectiveness on FR towards those who will vote McClintock & can in no way vote Arnold.

Frankly I'll chose another name and let those adamant Arnold folks have both titles Republican & conservative. So how about if I simply refer to myself as a Constitutionalist. I'll section the political spectrum into quadrants. The 1st quadrant, i.e. upper right, is for pro-life-fiscal-conservatives. The lower right is for pro-abortionfiscal-conservatives. The liberals own the left half plane.

As such I have more in common with the upper half plane than with the lower right quadrant.

But even if I call myself a Constitutionalist that term gets mudded because nearly everyone claims adherence - 'cept for those, David Beyer serving as a prototype, who believe & say in public the Constitution is outmoded.

So what to do? By the way there are non-Christians who are pro-life-fiscal-conservatives. Hey! maybe PLFC will do. Any ideas?

49
posted on 10/04/2003 6:58:40 PM PDT
by Dahlseide
(I am a single issue voter, I vote pro-life from dog-catcher to President)

there are non-Christians who are pro-life-fiscal-conservatives. Hey! maybe

PLFC will do. Any ideas?In its first paragraph, the very existence of the nation is pinned to the "laws of nature and nature's God." For Jefferson's contemporaries, this phrase meant the Romans 2:15 law written on every man's heart, whether Christian or not, as tested by the Christian Bible.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.